GoDigital
MG is one of many “entities” that do not review disputes, they just
automatically file the “reviewed and confirmed” notice reasoning that most of
the time it is correct and they can’t be bothered with the small amount of harm
that it causes. They will correct it if you email them. They used to have a “bitch
man” to email but that no longer works. They now have a very intimidating process
that you may find offensive but until someone has the gumption and finances to
sue that’s the best you can do. Here is the form that they want you to submit: http://www.godigitalmg.com/copyrightsform.php#formstart

Perhaps they are not aware that a blind right to take action against alleged infringers does not give them standing to file DMCA or other infringement claims. They need to look at recent decisions against Righthaven copyright trolling to help them understand this.

You can only file an infringement claim if you actually hold rights that are being infringed. That means that you either own the copyright, or you've been given certain rights to use the material via a license. You cannot claim infringement if you don't have any licensed rights. That what Righthaven's mistake, and it looks like GoDigital is making the same mistake, with YouTube's helpful lack of due diligence.

However the Speech by President Wilson is public domain. Not just because it was recorded in the 1920's, but because it's a speech by President Wilson!

The music bed is the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The music itself is public domain. So maybe they were talking about the performance of the music right? WRONG! This recording of the Battle Hymn of the Republic was performed by the U.S. Navy. So, it's public domain too.

GoDigital MG needs to re-evaluate their copyright engine. They claim that they make a mistake about 3 times out of 10,000. I'd say that they are just full of themselves.

If the recording was not made by the U.S. government, it's copyrighted. This is true both for a recording of a President's speech and for a recording of a U.S. Navy band. Thus, you need to verify that both recordings were actually created by the U.S. government. The fact that they might be recordings of something that is itself in the public domain isn't good enough. For example, photos of the Statue of Liberty are protected by copyright, even though the statue itself is in the public domain, so anyone can take a picture of the statue, but you cannot use a photo of the statue taken by someone else without his permission.

However, it's unlikely that GoDigital actually owns a copyright or any rights to the recordings you mention. If they don't, their claim is fraudulent.

Bridgeman v. Corel concerned "slavish" copying of a work in the public domain, that is, a copy that incorporates no originality at all and is thus not protected by copyright. It is true that a work must be original in order to be protected, but the threshold of originality is very low.

There are many ways to record a musical performance, and some of the choices made in setting up the recording could satisfy the criterion of originality. A recording made incidentally by a system already in place would incorporate no originality at all and thus would not be protected, just as a video recorded by a surveillance camera already in place arguably contains no originality (although that does not prevent the owners of such cameras from claiming copyright). Likewise, the cockpit voice recorder in an airplane just records anything it hears, and thus demonstrates no originality, and yet airlines routinely claim copyright on such recordings. I personally don't agree that any of this is copyrighted, but the courts decide, not me (or sometimes money decides).

So an audio recording of a government band playing a public-domain song may still be copyrightable, as might a recording of a Presidential speech. The greater the opportunity for originality, the more likely the recording is to be protected by copyright.

Of course, the only way to test this is to go to court, and often it's the party with the most money that wins. And you can certainly hire a lawyer—and this is a very good idea if you expect to take legal action—but even a good lawyer may not be able to predict how things would go in court. Intellectual property litigation is complex and can often move in unexpected directions.

In this case, it seems like a good idea to track down the source of the recordings and make sure that they were recorded by the government. If they weren't, they might be copyrighted, although my intuition tells me that GoDigital probably has nothing to do with it, and I've already mentioned the potential pitfalls of a "naked" right to sue or make infringement claims without any licensing.

Got flagged today by
GoDigital MG for a piece composed by George F. Handel and performed by a high school orchestra. The could not possibly own the copyright to either the music or the performance. This is just harassment at this point.

Followup: I filed the dispute, both with GoDigital MG and with YouTube. The copyright flag was cleared in less than 12 hours.

I actually consider this entirely acceptable, at least in the broadest sense. Almost all of my posts contain copyrighted material, and sometimes it takes a week of filling out forms, exchanging E-mails, signing and faxing documents, etc. to get permission. What's seems exceptional w.r.t. GoDigital MG is the amount of process needed to clear an obviously public domain work.

@Markimatang: It wouldn't be piracy unless they demanded money, which they didn't. I do, however, agree with the comments here and elsewhere that the language on their dispute form is intimidating.

If they get a Content ID match for material they don't actually own, and they monetize the video, then it is indeed a form of piracy, since they are then infringing on someone else's copyright and making money from it, with the approval and assistance of YouTube. So it's never okay for them to file claims for material they don't own. It's fraud.

“@Markimatang:
It wouldn't be piracy unless they demanded money, which they didn't.”

They
most certainly did!
They get paid for the advertisements they put on your video. Not only that but
they reserve the option to remove your video and even sue you for anything they
think that they can get. No matter how delicately google covers its ass, when
they “review and confirm” they have accused you of copyright infringement.

@Morpheus_777 – I did almost the exact same thing you did and GoDigital made copyright claims on behalf of an unnamed third party. I uploaded NASA video footage with the Air Force Coral Band's audio of "The Star Spangled Banner" both US Government recordings (downloaded from nasa.gov and af.mil respectively).

I got a flag from this group for using public domain music from MusOpen.org. I used it to demonstrate a vintage MONO tape recorder. Such use could not possibly cause any "harm" even if they DID own the rights. It is annoying to say the least, but rather than fight with them or give them anything, I simply removed the video.

It is unfortunate but there are several companies taking advantage of the murky copyright laws. Getty Images threatens people who have used licensed images that they purchased rights to, on their personal Web sites! Getty sends an extortion letter to pay them a certain "damages fee" or they will sue in court. YES, you buy the rights and THEN they threaten to sue you!

Another company that sold sewing machine software for fancy stitches got some press for trying to extort money from their OWN customers (no kidding) for using the software that they sold them and then trying to sell the products they made in crafts Websites. Apparently, their claim was that customers had the right to use the software to sew projects, but any project created could not be made public! It turned out that these clowns didn't check to see who was selling what, they used their registration forms (for the software, you had to register it to use it) as a mailing list and went of a wild extortion spree. Apparently they are still doing business and roping in victims.

I think basically that some folks have figured out that copyright infringement is a big business. You can extort money from the unwary or get other benefits by abusing the very laws that were designed to protect intellectual property.

I love YouTube because of all the information I can find here. I agree that there are many vague copyright areas in some of the videos.

I am very disappointed that YouTube does not support the content providers with more protection from false copyright claims. They can't use a robot to manage this type of thing because who is watching the robots?

If you do not defend your rights, you will lose them. History has proved this time and time again.

As an ordinary YouTube user, uploading his own videos, you cost YouTube money. They aren't interested in users who cost them money, which represents about 99.9% of all users. They are interested in the 0.1% who allow YouTube to make money, by producing content that can actually attract advertisers (the only people who actually sign checks to YouTube). From a business standpoint, there's no reason at all for them to care about what copyright trolls do to average users, as long as YouTube can avoid being sued itself. The regular user is a product that YouTube sells to the people who actually provide YouTube with revenue. The conflict of interest is obvious.

Morally and ethically, perhaps, YouTube might owe it to its users to prevent copyright trolling, but business is neither moral nor ethical in many cases, and money overrides all other concerns. YouTube is in unexplored territory legally, which can translate to being on very thin ice, but until and unless someone sues them for the consequences of copyright trolling (and wins), they are safe.

If all YouTube did was obey the DMCA, it would be making far less money. But the Content ID system, which allows a copyright holder to make money from infringement rather than simply put a stop to it, has turned illegal activity into a gold mine for both rights holders and YouTube. Until this extralegal procedure is successfully challenged in court, the trolling will continue (and probably worsen).

Nearly all of my posts get flagged for content match, usually correctly. I don't mind dealing with that.

My complaints are really pretty simple: if you're going to claim infringement and take punitive action, you need more due diligence than a simple hit from a fuzzy digital matching algorithm; and you need to tell me exactly what I'm infringing so I can make an accurate response.

When I get a content match from Sony, they (usually) state what it is they think I'm infringing. ASCAP has an online searchable database of everything they claim. Does GoDigital have a performance of Handel's Concerto Grosso anywhere in their portfolio? There's no way to tell.

And that's one of several weaknesses to the Content ID system, which is a poor solution to the infringement problem.

Copyright infringement is like drug use: no matter what you do to stop it, it persists. The only way to make it go away is to change the attitudes of society. Cigarette smoking is way down in the U.S. because it was finally made socially unacceptable in most situations. When and if people can be inculcated with morals standards that make it objectionable to themselves to infringe on copyrights, infringement will stop. But right now most people don't understand copyright, and copyright is too restrictive and extreme (and getting worse all the time, thanks to bribes of Congress by media companies), and it requires more honesty than many people can muster.

As of 3 days ago I have posted on Youtube a video with a clip of a harpsichord recital I gave in St. Louis last November 13th at a private location; the XVIII century French music in the clip was taken from original manuscripts or XVIII century editions (I make a point of studying from orginal sources!)... and I found my video labelled as "containing third party... blah, blah, blah", following a complaint from GoDigital MG.

I have just asked my lawyer friends in the US if this "intimidation" can be considered as infringing some laws or amendments of the US legal system and to explore the possibilities of a law suit or even a class action against GoDigital MG. Obviously I have already mirror copied on my computer all their web site pages and any other material that may be of use in a law suit.

@harmoniamusicae – I believe you received an automated message generated by YouTube's Content-ID software that "matched" content in your upload to content that GoDigital MG enrolled into YouTube's system. If this is the case, GoDigital MG did not send you the message – YouTube sent it.

GoDigital have just claimed a copyright infringement of a video in which I am playing the Christmas Carol Silent Night on my keyboard. Is was written in 1783 and I'm the musician playing it!!!

Two days later they claimed a copyright infrigement on a clip of a Christmas Carol being sung in an English cathedral 25 years ago. They can't possibly have any rights to that!! What on earth is going on?

…Once a tentative match was made
to your posting, this possible "violation" of our client’s
"intellectual property" rights was reviewed by at least one real,
live, human being who did not find any apparent reason to believe that: 1) the
scan/fingerprint system made an invalid match; or 2) the use of the copyrighted
material was likely licensed by you for such use; or 3) your use was of such a
nature that no formal license/authorization is legally required.

Then,
as we are obligated to do on behalf of our clients, we notify the website that
carries the posting(s) in question that a copyright claim related to the
posting(s) is being made. The website then – as they are legally obligated to
do – notifies the user-subscriber who uploaded the posting(s) in question that
a copyright claim has been filed "against" the posting.”

So
they are alleging that “one real, live, human being” reviewed the Content ID
match before claiming the video (and posting adverts to it). Well, just where did
they find the deaf, dumb, blind, pinball wizard to review it?

Hire a lawyer and sue. These trolls get away with their abuse of the system because they prey upon people who can't afford to hire lawyers. Unfortunately, although someone prosecuted for a criminal act is entitled to free legal representation, a person who is being seriously shafted in tort is entitled to nothing at all, and must be rich to protect his interests.

Sometimes the trolls stumble, though. Look at the current state of Righthaven. Not only are they out of the running after filing innumerable abusive infringement cases, but their CEO is now at risk of being disbarred.

@RobLow – There are two kinds of copyright claims on
YouTube, a DMCA notice or a Content ID match. Here we are discussing the
Content ID match which is an extralegal process invented by Google that has no
due process. This lack of due process is what we are bitching about here. Your
references are for a DMCA notice, which is a legal process, and the counter
notice that you refer to is part of that due process.

So, has anyone heard anything from Youtube regarding these accusations? Obviously companies are making a TON of money off of erroneously filing claim to people's content 1.) hoping that people will just ignore it feeling they will have to go through a legal process to properly dispute it 2.) Not caring if they have to go an extra step to let it go IF the person fights back ?? How is this possibly legal? You would think that YouTube's content match team Dept. would have a floor of rolling eyeballs on this.

YT CONTENT MATCH REP 1: "Oh great ANOTHER content match dispute from GoDigital. Yep, of course... it was a three year old singing 'Twinkle 'Twinkle Little Star."YT CONTENT MATCH REP 2: "Wait... wasn't that Associated Production Music Co. content...?"

"d) Soundtrack Pro. You may use the Apple and third party audio file content (including, but not limited to, the built-in sound files, samples and impulse responses) (collectively the “Audio Content”), contained in or otherwise included with the Apple Software, on a royalty-free basis, to create your own original soundtracks for your film, video and audio projects. You may broadcast and/or distribute your own soundtracks that were created using the Audio Content, however, individual audio files may not be commercially or otherwise distributed on a standalone basis, nor may they be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, sound files or music beds."

So why they are even using content match for the said loops is BEYOND me, other than trying to fraudulently earn dishonest income.

@PostpartumLoser – You are the 1st person on this forum to ever report that Associated Production Music is claimingApple Soundtrack loops and your screenshot doesn't even contain a reference to the company so I fail to see what it proves.

If Associated Production Music has made a claim that they
shouldn't have on an upload of yours please start a new thread titled
appropriately (example: Associated Production Music claiming Apple
Soundtrack loops). Describe what happened and provide the URL of the
video claimed and screenshots of any messages you received regarding the
claim. (I'll post the screenshot images inline and hot-linked
on your post.)

I am uploading a bunch of recordings of my, (made all in my own studio) of public domain works only. After upload I get right the way the nice message you all have got. So this is an automated message, and gives me just a bit more pain filling out the dispute form besides the time of uploading all. It is highly annoying in my case because in fact my daughter is working at PRO, so we really know all about copyrights!My only note would be here, that I was surprised when I started with the idea of getting my tracks to YouTube, how many, actually thousands of questionable tracks any kind are on YouTube without problem.Instead of bugging us who don't even think about using copyrighted material, they should take all those under the loupe!

@gbcali My post was firstly my reaction to companies fraudulently claiming content on youtube IN GENERAL and then I brought up my issue as a possible example of why I was frustrated. Doing any digging anyone would find that Associated Production Music is the one providing many loops in Apple Loops (which is of course why they claimed my content).

I did dispute it and it was corrected almost immediately, thank goodness. Youtube has worked on my side in that way.

I DO have another video from another channel in which it's monetization was removed (again using apple loops and garageband instruments) without a claim or warning which is why Im here again. :) Hopefully the legal request to review process will work again, on my side.

I think it would be very awesome if they had a safeguard option in place where if there are multiple claims of a specific type song or music that are over-ridden, the flag would be either be automatically sent into a queue for review before showing up on the Youtuber's account or disabled due to inefficiency in claim (multiple fraudulent claims).

Kind of how in Apple Motion 5 when using the Rotobrush- it 'learns' about what you need and dont need as you null out certain parts of the video footage and colors. It makes isolating footage FASTER because you dont have to keep going back and telling it what parts are not-needed.

I wonder if they have an option in place for the music identifier that is similar? Cheers!

I loooooove how the link to Go Digital's youtube form, doesn't work anymore.

Its almost as if someone told them it was illegal to shake down people, by holding their video hostage and demanding your personal info?

Both Craze Digital and the Orchard were denied money money, on the Content ID Match claims they made on Public Domain material, until they could provide proof of ownership.

...This will happen to Go Digital.

Back to Youtube; when they (Orchard Craze) could not prove ownership, where do you think the Ad money went? I can't prove it; but I'm willing to believe that money rolled right back into Youtubes pocket.

Youtube/Google is making more then just 15%, their making a killing off the ad money they refuse (not getting your adsence money?). This is why Youtube isn't cracking down on Content ID Fraud, its their racket.

Youtube is master mining copyright fraud, plain and simple. If I give you a car and a gun, even if I tell you "don't rob a bank", I can't keep the money if you do! You don't need to be a lawyer to figure this one out.

Youtube and Google have made a nice house of cards, I can hardly wait until a judge blows them down.

As for Go Digital, I may have dug up something real nice (like I did with Orchard,Craze and that other company that gave in to my demands).

I have a claim against them (Go Digital) I'm disputing...Lets see how brave they are?

hi i have been trying to find information on these guys your links seem to lead to search engines mostly. I have them claiming copyright to things they dont own which is against the youtube tos actually.. and want to get this dealt with on my channel. They even claimed rights to something that is mine and that I created. False copyright claims are against youtubes own terms of service but darned if i can find anynames of people or emails or mail addresses or phone numbers or anything.. :(

yes i finally got some info i will post the email addresses here its taken me well since last night to dig it up after I noticed that "my disput claim was rejected" meanwhile I am considering just deleted and reuploading with full CCC remix on it except one situation wont allow that well due to copyright lol which is ironic but they are making a lot of work for me so much so I am thinking its not really worth using youtube anymore. If they keep doing this to users they will be left with a very small userbase and danged if I am going to ever use itunes!

GoDigital also flagged my performance of a 17th century piece of music. We own the copyrights; they don't. Before even one viewer looked at the vid they had ads running on it. YouTube should have a grace period for the ads so the owner can have time to respond.

They just claimed on one of my old videos which uses music provided by Apple in Garageband!! Apple allow use of it commercially and non commercially and Go Digital have absolutely NO RIGHTS to it AT ALL!!

My dispute on YouTube reads:"The music found in this video is one of many tracks that come from Garageband which is part of the iLife suite that Apple sells. The music is not protected by copyright and is available to use in commercial and not commercial circumstances."

I also sent them an E-Mail which reads:"Hello,

I am writing to inform you about a copyright claim on one of my videos, The music that was used is in the public domain and is distributed by Apple Inc. and the fact you are claiming copyright on it is barbaric. I am disputing the claim via YouTube and sending you this e mail.

The music
“Audio content” provided by apple in GarageBand IS COPYRIGHTED! When you
purchase Apple software (or hardware containing the software) you are given a
LICENSE to use that material, so technically your dispute should not claim that
you used public domain material but that you used copyrighted material WITH A
PROPER LICENSE.

“You may use the Apple and third party audio content (“Audio
Content”) contained in or otherwise included with the Apple Software, on a
royalty free basis, to create your own original soundtracks for your video and
audio projects. You may broadcast and/or distribute your own soundtracks that
were created using the Audio Content, however, individual samples, sound sets,
or audio content may not be commercially or otherwise distributed on a
standalone basis, nor may they be repackaged in whole or in part as audio
samples, sound files, sound effects or music beds.”

This happened to me a while back too. I didn't get a strike against my account or anything but it pisses me off that some company THAT I HAVENT EVEN HEARD OF, can file bullshit claims. I used FREAKING iMOVIE! For god's sake talk about with money comes power! Correct me if I'm wrong but if you use sound effects created in/from your editing software, it's completely legal? Either way APPLE INC. would've filed the claim, NOT SOME COMPANY THAT I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF! I have 62 subscribers! 62! what harm can I possible do with sound clips from iMOVIE!

people need to band together and sue youtube in a class action, not the trolls

we can use the same laws that got napster shut down and that still plague the pirate bay.

youtube is providing a service that violates YOUR copyright by allowing false claimsits NO DIFFERENT THAN LETTING SOMEONE DOWNLOAD IT!

its time to take youtube to task for their terrible systems that steals our works and our revenues on behalf of a 3rd party.people are suffering real monetary losses due to this and that's what the copyright laws are all about.

This is a recording of my guitar performance. The piece I put here was composed in the Renaissance era, almost 400 years ago, so it is absolutely in the public domein. I have disputed, but they rejected it, so you can see the advertisement which gives them an income. What makes me upset is they refer to totally another piece, "747313331321_01_03;I. Allegro, vivo e schietto." which I never know, and they actually do not view/review, even when disputing.

I feel that individual creators are so week to such pernicious organisation. We have got really few way to fight against them on youtube.

Success! From an email from youtube this morning: GoDigital MG For a Third Party has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, "The Rat Race". For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page

Success! From an email from youtube this morning: GoDigital MG For a Third Party has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, "The Rat Race". For more information, please visit your Copyright Notice page

Excellent, It’s always good to hear that the system
sometimes works. One question though, did Godigital MG simply agree with your
dispute or did they release their claim after having “reviewed your video and confirmed
their claims to some or all of its content” as they have claimed for
Morpheus_777’s video?

I uploaded MY OWN PERFORMANCE of one of Handel's arias, and got flagged for it
I responded that they are in error because Handel is public domain, but they still insisted that I was wrong. I tried to pursue it and read that if I do so I could get sued, fined, etc. WHAT?????????????????
I clicked on the link given up above there, and got a screen that told me the site was no longer available. So then, how do we fight these "trolls"?

But other people are using MY youtube videos to promote their sales, so
SOMEBODY (not me) is profiting from the videos that I upload onto Youtube.
I know this, because when I type in the name of a video that I created and put on Youtube of MY OWN PERFORMANCES of songs that are public domain, I find them on sites selling flowers, tractors, advertising bars, and/or sites that promote sales of CDs of classical music--why would typing in the name of my video take you to such sites unless they were USING my videos to attract viewers to their sites?

I'm glad to see that this thread is still running after so long, because GoDigital (and others) are still up to it. True, you are getting a free service from YouTube to host your videos, but making false claims of rights ownership in order to profit from your work is just plain wrong, and sad. Is is worth it for the little-guy to make the effort to sue YouTube and GoDigital as co-defendants? No, and in the end the "best" case is that there will no longer be a free hosting service, but that possibility will be outstripped by technology or the next-big-thing (funded by revenue from these issues) before it is ever resolved.

Here is my example of content-match abuse... I recorded a private piano recital with several camera positions and mics in the piano, for non-commercial (educational) purposes. I edited the audio and video myself and produced the finished video product myself using no footage or audio from any non-original source recording. I have signed releases from the performers and express permission from the venue. This particular piece was composed over 150 years ago, and for this level of performance the instructor only uses period literature, or arrangemants/edits of sheet music from the period of the compositions (in this case, still around 1890, with no significant original content to the original). I uploaded the video on a Sunday morning (when GoDigital's "humans" were not likely on the job) and by the time it was finished processing and live, there was a content-id match from GoDigital and ads running already. I wasted about two hours or so researching THOROUGHLY to make sure that the composition, arrangement and sheet-music (had to contact the instructor to obtain) were old enough to be public domain, which they were. As mentioned, I own the performance rights and the master recordings. I filed the content-match dispute within probably three hours of the claim (still on a Sunday afternoon) and within minutes, I received a notice that the claim had been removed. That's magical speed for a "human" to review it and say "oops." It seems to me that GoDigital may be making blanket claims of content-match of anything they may possibly control a piece of any rights too, including similar sounding loops, text in titles and descriptions, etc. with an automated system to quickly remove any claims that are disputed on "grey" claims. Meanwhile, they are making money by claiming rights to someone else's intellectual property. YouTube owns the hosting site/service and could put ads on anything they want if they put it in their TOS, but outsiders trolling and making false claims to get a piece of the action is most certainly THEIR willful infringement on performance rights, and the antithesis of the reasons for content-match service.

Now, I recently uploaded a video I made under almost identical circumstances, this time of my 10-year-old son playing Beethoven's "Fur Elise" again, from very old sheet music (circa 1900) and again, within seconds, it had content-match claims from THREE DIFFERENT ENTITIES, including Sony, Harry Fox Agency and "Multiple Performance Rights Societies" with the (different) timestamps in the video of the claimed infringments. So, who owns/controls the rights to my son's performance of a public-domain composition from very old sheet-music? It can't be all three of these trolls, now can it? I filed dispute, which was only sent to the first one on the list, (Sony) and the status says they have 30 days to respond. Meanwhile the other two content-match claims still stand (along with the unresponded Sony dispute).

My solution for now is to use Vimeo, which has no ads and allows you to password-protect anything you do not want publicly accessible (better than YT's "unlisted" option). Eventually they could start the same type of shenanigans, but nothing like that so far. Ultimately, I will end up hosting everything myself, with only limited uploads to YouTube in order to promote and redirect to my own site.